GOP willingness to swallow defense cuts is historic

In hindsight, President Barack Obama made one major if understandable miscalculation in the 2011 budget-sequester process. Needing something that would force congressional Republicans to negotiate when the time came, he and his advisers crammed some $500 billion in defense-spending cuts into the bill, believing that congressional conservatives would compromise to avoid implementation of those cuts.

He was wrong. Some Republicans — led by John McCain in the Senate and by House Armed Services chair Buck McKeon, among others — have indeed tried to rally great outrage at the cuts. For example, according to a fact sheet put out by McKeon’s committee:

“In the midst of the most dynamic and complex security environment in recent memory, sequestration would severely diminish America’s global posture. An additional 100,000 soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen would be separated from service. Those reductions would lead to:
– The smallest ground force since 1940
– A fleet of fewer than 230 ships, the smallest level since 1915
– The smallest tactical fighter force in the history of the Air Force.

… Cuts to spending for the acquisition of military equipment alone would lead the loss of over 1,000,000 private sector jobs. These cuts could push unemployment back up to 9%. Cuts to active-duty and DOD civilian
personnel would amount to over 350,000 jobs lost.”

(According to data released by McKeon’s committee, Georgia alone has 37,000 civilian defense employees, and furloughs will cost the state some $203 million in payroll between now and October.)

However, despite such dire warnings and in a surprise to the Obama administration, congressional Republicans in general have found defense cutbacks far more acceptable than the revenue increases that would be needed to avoid them. And if even Republicans no longer see the Pentagon as invulnerable, that’s historic.

In fact, that change of attitude will have consequences far beyond the immediate short-term spending battle between Republican and Democrats. It represents a national turning point, with potentially major long-term implications not just for defense spending but for how the United States of America conducts itself overseas. It would seem that the American people are no longer content to spend more on defense than every other major country on the planet combined.

The politics behind the change are fairly conventional. In a recent poll by The Hill, 49 percent of likely voters said they would support cutting defense in order to reduce the deficit, while only 37 percent were opposed to the idea.

Contrast those numbers with a similar question asked about entitlements:

hillpoll

To be honest, I first saw inklings about that change in attitude regarding defense not in polls, but in comments on this blog over the past few years. When a number of conservative Georgians began to voice support for making cuts in the Pentagon budget, I realized that public opinion was changing quickly at the grassroots level, in ways that official Washington had not even begun to understand.

But that too is changing, as the sequester demonstrates.

– Jay Bookman

407 comments Add your comment

Peadawg

March 4th, 2013
8:34 am

True, Jay. But this got my attention even more:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/03/obama-worked-the-phones-saturday-on-spending-cuts-adviser-says/?hpt=hp_t2

“He’s reaching out to Democrats who understand we have to make serious progress on long-term entitlement reform, and Republicans who realize if we have that type of entitlement reform, they’d be willing to have tax reform that raises revenues to lower the deficit,” Sperling said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

We’ll see what happens.

M

March 4th, 2013
8:36 am

Our smallest military in years is still more than the next 10 or 15 countries combined.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

March 4th, 2013
8:39 am

Perhaps we need to concentrate on some more military cuts rather than the misdirection of entitlement cuts. Infrastructure is where we should be spending.

Peadawg

March 4th, 2013
8:40 am

First, biatches btw. Happy Monday!

American Christian & Patriot!

March 4th, 2013
8:40 am

But we need those battleships and fighter planes to win against the terrorists!!!

And what about those military jobs!?

Obarma don’t care about military warriors.

Brad Steel

March 4th, 2013
8:43 am

Hmm? So the republicans are actually going to move their foreign policy platform 50’s to the 80’s?

Oh, how wonderfully daring and progressive!

Welcome to the Occupation

March 4th, 2013
8:43 am

Amazing, isn’t it, that Obama’s Republican negotiating partners have simply refused to take “Yes” for an answer from an Obama who has been just bending over backwards to put social programs on the chopping block as part of a “grand bargain”.

Eventually the GOP will magically come around and join with this austerity president, who is a natural partner for them, in taking the meat cleaver to the social programs and gains for working people of the 20th Century. That’s just a matter of time, and all of this is a really just so much theater.

Jm

March 4th, 2013
8:44 am

A. There will be no more tax revenue increases unless there is tax reform reducing rates

B. Yes, fiscal issues matter to Republicans and spending will be cut. Of all types, shapes, and forms.

Get used to it. Or get used to stalemate.

RB from Gwinnett

March 4th, 2013
8:47 am

Who is even proposing “cuts” to SS and medicare, Jay? Hell, I don’t even support that. However, in it’s current state, the programs are unsustainable and they need to be modified so future generations have a chance at collecting something at all.

You may as well phrase the question “Do you prefer cuts to SS/Medicare or free beer?” and go with that answer as statistically valid.

M

March 4th, 2013
8:48 am

Here’s a good read regarding the reasons why we won’t have a deal anytime soon. The GOP says things like, “If Obama did X, we’d totally be for that.” Then it’s pointed out that Obama is indeed offering X, and the Republicans switch to “we never wanted X in the first place, it’s a gimmick.”

Sigh.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/02/this-is-why-obama-cant-make-a-deal-with-republicans/

Jm

March 4th, 2013
8:48 am

Peadawg – yes, Obama has to convince Senate Democrats to reform entitlements. If he doesn’t, the sequester will stay in effect indefinitely.

stands for decibels

March 4th, 2013
8:48 am

He’s reaching out to Democrats who understand we have to make serious progress on long-term entitlement reform

And I hope each and every one of those guys and gals told him to eff right off.

godless heathen - owner of many things he does not need

March 4th, 2013
8:51 am

The DoD throws money away with both hands.

Maybe they’ll learn to spend more wisely.

Maybe a Civil Service job for the DoD won’t be a guaranteed money train until a fat retirement.

Maybe we’ll look at combining some branches of our military.

In my area, the Holy Grail of employment has always been to “Get on at the base.” Great pay, lots of holidays, total job security. Needs to change.

They call me MISTER JamVet.

March 4th, 2013
8:51 am

There are always BIG consequences to military cuts like these. It is such a huge component of our economy that there is no way around it

I remember thinking 30 years ago that the impact on military communities, especially smaller ones, though severe, was something that we needed to do then, rather than kick that can down the road forever, thus exacerbating the problem.

And though there have been many base closings and realignments, the issue, is not resolved and is still with us.

And in spite of Eisenhower’s brilliant warning, the reactionaries will always say that this is NOT the time for change. Even though we spend WAY, WAY, WAY too much on a corrupted, fraudulent, wasteful and redundant military-industrial complex…

stands for decibels

March 4th, 2013
8:51 am

if even Republicans no longer see the Pentagon as invulnerable, that’s historic.

It’s “historic” that one of two national parties took more than 20 years to acknowledge a peace dividend after fighting the Cold War all those years?

Well, that’s one word you could use, I guess.

Dumb and Dumber

March 4th, 2013
8:52 am

Sad to see 60% of males and 77% of voters in poll are so clueless. Democrats will rule as long as #s stay like that (and the printing presses keep running on the money). Unbelievable people in this country are so dumb.

larry

March 4th, 2013
8:53 am

Dear John Boehner,

Thank you for standing up to President Obama . My new contract is $52 million guaronteeeed. And that new tax rate of 39.6%. LOL!! With all of my new loopholes you preserved, my tax rate will be two times less that. Heck, our ball boy will be paying more in taxes than i will. LOL!!! Anyway, thank you again. Now, i’ll expect to recieve that invitiation to meet my man, Mitt Romney. You know, the one that came up with that bone head idea to close loopholes to us millionaires and billionaires in the first place. I know now that he knows the error of his idea!!!

Thank You

Joe Flacco

stands for decibels

March 4th, 2013
8:54 am

Sad to see 60% of males and 77% of voters in poll are so clueless.

So “clueless” as to think that the richest, most powerful country ever on the planet should at least keep its half-assed promises to provide a half-assed social safety net?

Words fail me.

Find Muck

March 4th, 2013
8:55 am

The Vent Guy has confirmed that a statement attributed to Churchill pointing out the fundamental differences in the whole lib/con mindset
is in fact accurate.

I definately trust the VG over Granny Sam everyday.

Doggone/GA

March 4th, 2013
8:56 am

“Sad to see 60% of males and 77% of voters in poll are so clueless. Democrats will rule as long as #s stay like that (and the printing presses keep running on the money). Unbelievable people in this country are so dumb”

Yeah, that’s how to win people over to your “side”…keep telling them their too dumb to understand your message. Ever heard of a “self-fulfilling prophecy”? You are defining it.

Welcome to the Occupation

March 4th, 2013
8:57 am

RB from Gwinnett: “Who is even proposing “cuts” to SS and medicare, Jay? Hell, I don’t even support that”

Uh, Obama! C’mon.

Oh, and also a guy named Ryan who you may have heard of. He has quite a reputation as an up-and-comer in GOP policy circles.

They call me MISTER JamVet.

March 4th, 2013
8:58 am

OK, off to further fuel the non-military component of our economy.

Enjoy the rest of the morning and don’t feed the dumber and mucky trolls!

Normal, Plain and Simple

March 4th, 2013
8:58 am

I’m still ambivalent about the Military cuts. The Military Industrial Complex has bled us dry, but I really would like to see more cuts on oil and Agriculture monies. We could just about balance the budget on those alone, I’m thinking…

JohnnyReb

March 4th, 2013
8:59 am

I’m with RB – I don’t want SS cut.

The question in the poll was designed to produce a political answer favored by the organization who funded the poll.

A question that made it clear older people’s SS would not be touched and only younger workers would be transitioned to a different program would have produced an entirely different result.

Steve

March 4th, 2013
9:00 am

I’m beginning to wonder if we’ll ever reach a compromise where the filthy rich will start to pay taxes on their corporate jets so we can then take more food away from poor children and the elderly.

levels of blackness

March 4th, 2013
9:01 am

I want to know who the airport shuttle jacker’s sphere of influence
voted for.

MOB RULE is coming, sheeples!

Steve

March 4th, 2013
9:01 am

Total cost of wars since 2001:

$1,429,000,000,000+

think about that for a minute.

http://costofwar.com/

JohnnyReb

March 4th, 2013
9:02 am

Any assumption the Right is willing to weaken the military in favor of social programs is flat wrong.

This particular moment in time is an abberation to get spending cuts in place since Obama won’t do any cuts.

You will see the Right move to give the Pentagon flexibility in using their money to mitigate Obama’s sequestration.

That’s right – it’s Obama’s. He wanted it. He got it. The House passed two bills to prevent this but Barry and Harry would not take them up.

DannyX

March 4th, 2013
9:03 am

Are you kidding??? The defense contractors well never allow the cuts to be made. Their lobbyists are swarming DC as we speak. This is just a negotiating ploy by the Republicans, they know who their masters are, they have no intention of allowing these cuts to be made.

wahoo

March 4th, 2013
9:03 am

Jay, defense spending can come down in a post-war environment, as it has after previous wars. The fact that the GOP wants to reduce defense spending should be seen as fiscally prudent in the long run since defense is such a large annual expenditure.

In theory this should appeal to both conservatives who care (or proclaim to care) about reducing the deficit, and to liberals who have long bemoaned the fact that we spend so much more on defense than any other country.

Stevie Ray

March 4th, 2013
9:05 am

JAY

I’m thinking that the sequestermaggedon hysteria employed by McCain is akin to that of BO. Both using scare tactics to generate public opinion to keep sacred pet or otherwise ideological (often illogical) characteristic(s).

I’m not sure there exists a disingenous comparison between cutting the military and the numbers offered on altering entitlements. The word “cuts” as opposed to eliminating waste, slowing medical cost increases, or simply minor restructuring in order to be better prepared for historic draws on these programs in the coming decades are more appropriate questions. If course nobody wants their share of the entitlement pie “cut”..of course “cut” is not defined in the question…

TaxPayer

March 4th, 2013
9:05 am

Bush’s wars should have been funded with new tax revenues from day one. Given that Republicans refuse to pay for their wars, or anything else, we have no choice but to cut the DoD budget and cut it we will.

DannyX

March 4th, 2013
9:05 am

“The House passed two bills to prevent this but Barry and Harry would not take them up.”

“I got 98% of what I wanted.”
-John Noehner

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

March 4th, 2013
9:06 am

Well, why can’t they cut off the old geezers and the welfare queens and Those People and give our defense a bump in the budget? I just don’t know how we’re going to keep this country safe if we don’t have 700 buck toilets (you got to have nice places for the best soldiers in the world to take a dump) and $150,000 salaries for contractors that do the same thing a $30,000 soldier does.

I’m scared, I tell you. What good does it do to be saved from some thug planting a chip in your brain if the Terrists are just going to run loose all over the place?

Let’s put the priorities where they belong. Make them Republican priorities. Let the freeloaders beg with a tin cup at the exit ramps.

That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good Monday everybody.

mm

March 4th, 2013
9:08 am

Truth is, there have not been any tax increases. The Bush tax rate simply expired. This is not new revenue. It’s simply existing revenue Bush gave away in his budget busting tax cut binge.

New revenue should come from eliminating the ridiculous tax loopholes.

indigo

March 4th, 2013
9:08 am

“defense cutbacks far more acceptable than revenue increases”

Today’s Republican Party is totally owned by Big Business, which furnishes most of their election and re-election funding.

Big Business is only interested in profit. If their political toadies allow the people to suffer and our defense to be weakened, it means nothing to them.

Reducing their profit margins, however is something they will NEVER accept and you may be sure Boehener and all the others have been given to understand that in the harshest terms possible.

RB from Gwinnett

March 4th, 2013
9:10 am

“A question that made it clear older people’s SS would not be touched and only younger workers would be transitioned to a different program would have produced an entirely different result.”

And better represent the proposals actually being discussed. But we wouldn’t want the low information liberals to get any deeper into issues than the headlines on “Weekend Update” would we?!!

Phil Lunney

March 4th, 2013
9:10 am

There are next to no Defense ‘program’ cuts being implemented by this Sequester (although it appears that the GOP has a bill to ‘fund’ and give flexibility to Defense which is pending on this issue – if they bring it to a vote, SHOW US THE MONEY in either revenue or closing tax loopholes, remember the GOP set this standard).

Where we are seeing the cuts in Defense and other areas are furloughs to employees. They appear to be 1 day a week which will result in a 20% pay cut now through 9/30. So no Defense programs get hurt, just a minor slow down but the government employees take the hit. And as Jamie Dupree pointed out this morning, Constitutionally the Congress cannot take a hit to their pay, so they are returning from a nice 3 day weekend with no sacrifice at all.

ByteMe - Got ilk?

March 4th, 2013
9:11 am

If by “entitlement reform” we mean freeing up Medicare to negotiate pricing with drug companies and device manufacturers, and putting rules in place that when given a choice between competing products with the same results, Medicare doctors must use the less expensive device… then I’m all for it! Oh, and also reduce the eligibility age to “buy in” to Medicare, to add more healthy people to the system at normal health insurance premium prices.

Oh, you mean by “entitlement reform” that we just screw more people who can’t afford it? Well, then… no.

larry

March 4th, 2013
9:12 am

Reducing their profit margins, however is something they will NEVER accept and you may be sure Boehener and all the others have been given to understand that in the harshest terms possible.

Nope, Boehener doesnt want to suffer the same fate his buddy Newt Gingrich suffered. But i’m afraid its going to happen to him anyway.

Brosephus™ - Mobile and Multitasking

March 4th, 2013
9:12 am

RB & JReb

Just what do you think Ryan’s plan does to SS? If you’re 55 then you’re ok. People in my age bracket are getting f**ked over and nobody gives a sh*t. Well, I say screw that because I’ve been paying into the system for more than twenty years, and if I get hosed, then there had better be enough hose to get everybody.

F. Sinkwich

March 4th, 2013
9:14 am

“…President Barack Obama made one major if understandable miscalculation in the 2011 budget-sequester process.”

O’bozo got played, plain and simple. Pretty funny, actually.

He got his tax increases. Now is the time for cuts. And cuts won’t be traded for tax increases. Period.

Steve

March 4th, 2013
9:14 am

How do lower income “conservatives” justify the income disparity now, where the wealthy are richer than ever? Where the wealthy have tax breaks but we cut programs for everyone else?

Stevie Ray

March 4th, 2013
9:16 am

JohnnyReb

March 4th, 2013
8:59 am

Who wants benefits cut? Who wants the benefits to remain sustainable is really the question. Suggesting cuts is a politically motivated means to describe responsible changes. As mentioned, the ratio of workers to beneficiary was 16:1, now 3:1 and in 2030 estimated at 2:1.

Some argue that these ratio’s are irrelevant but nothing could be farther from the truth.. Pay as you go as opposed to savings or investment system. As the lifespans increase and the number of new workers entering the work force decrease, the ability to finance future benefit obligations is problematic.

Instead of educating the masses of this real issue, the BO/WH/DEMS scare folks into suggesting benefits will be cut per se..

Moderate Line

March 4th, 2013
9:16 am

M

March 4th, 2013
8:36 am
Our smallest military in years is still more than the next 10 or 15 countries combined.
++++++++++
Our current defense spending is 4.7% of GDP. Under Bush defense spending was never over 4.3% of GDP.

Steve

March 4th, 2013
9:17 am

Common Sense is Uncommon

March 4th, 2013
9:17 am

Effects of the sequester: Obama gives 250 million dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian government plus another 50 million to the Al Quaeda backed Syrian rebels. Meanwhile he buys 2700 tanks for our Department of Homeland Security for use against American citizens. So far, and this is just the beginning, Using money borrowed from China, Obama has purchased billions of bullets many of which are hollow point which are not suitable for the stated purpose of “target” practice, and has purchased drones and now 2700 armored tanks while demanding we the people be disarmed. All of the above is for use by civilian government agencies, primairily Homeland Security while simultaneously reducing our military budget. Now what could possibly be Obama’s motive in doing this? Remember his campaign statement of wanting a civilian force at least as big and as strong as our armed forces? Looks like that is what he is doing while Congress and the Media fidels.

td

March 4th, 2013
9:18 am

Sequestration is not even a REAL cut. It is a reduction in the anticipated future growth of the budget.

So why are workers getting furloughs since the budget will actually be higher next year then it was this year? Could it be because Obama wants furloughs? Could it be because Obama wants people to suffer for his own political gain?

The CBO just announced that revenues will be at a ALL time high next year.

Bob

March 4th, 2013
9:18 am

Occupation
“Amazing, isn’t it, that Obama’s Republican negotiating partners have simply refused to take “Yes” for an answer from an Obama who has been just bending over backwards to put social programs on the chopping block as part of a “grand bargain”. ”

Thats news, what social programs would be spending less today than they did before after Obama putting them on a chopping block ?

Simple Truths

March 4th, 2013
9:19 am

“in ways that official Washington had not even begun to understand”

This phrase applies to most things, not just defense spending.

Steve

March 4th, 2013
9:19 am

While so many Americans are subsisting on food stamps, losing their homes, and accumulating credit card debt they will never be able to pay off, the US is giving Israel $3 billion in direct foreign aid every year and, according to Congressman James Traficant, another $12-17 billion in indirect aid such as valuable military equipment deemed “scrapped,” loan guarantees, and preferential contracts. Israel is an affluent country with more than 10,000 millionaires and, according to the International Monetary Fund, was one of the few economies that weathered the 2008 financial storm nearly unscathed.

http://thebilzerianreport.com/how-much-does-israel-cost-the-average-american/

Bosch

March 4th, 2013
9:20 am

Hell, the DoD could cut 10 million or so on paper towels and toilet paper. I have a “wait and see” attitude towards this whole thing. When you cut 86 billion out of the economy you are going to see slow growth, unemployment rise, etc., then the GOP will just bitch about that too. This won’t happen immediately, it will take long enough for our ADD citizens to forget these cuts and then still proclaim how Obama is the spendingest POTUS evah!

Nobama

March 4th, 2013
9:21 am

At this point, we’ll take ANY spending cuts we can get as Nobama drives us slowly but surely to bankruptcy. Bite me Jayboy !

Stevie Ray

March 4th, 2013
9:21 am

Brosephus™ – Mobile and Multitasking

March 4th, 2013
9:12 am

We may or may not get screwed. It depends on how the next generation of workers’ successfully offer enough income to finance obligations to you. Something will have to get done. Either the SS tax rate will gradually have to increase, entitlements are consistent with current and projected lifespans, better yet a combination of both.

If our outflows continue to exceed our inflows out upkeep will be our downfall…

Tom Middleton

March 4th, 2013
9:21 am

Now that we’ve gotten the mental-patient Republicans to stop playing with the scissors, what’s next, teach them to love others? Hey, we can only try, Jay, and God knows they need it, but this may take us quite awhile for sure! :)

Madmax

March 4th, 2013
9:24 am

mm – correction 1- Bush & Obama Correction #2 Obama made permanent the largest piece of those revenue reductions. Overlook # 1 President Obama reduced the payroll tax revenues by 1/3 on a program that is trying to stay afloat. So if you want to tirade about Bush, President Obama has made a longer term impact ” in his budget busting tax cut binge”.

Granny Godzilla

March 4th, 2013
9:24 am

Find Muck

March 4th, 2013
8:55 am

The Vent Guy has confirmed that a statement attributed to Churchill pointing out the fundamental differences in the whole lib/con mindset
is in fact accurate.

I definately trust the VG over Granny Sam everyday.
.
.
.
.
silly silly silly

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed

silly silly silly

wahoo

March 4th, 2013
9:24 am

Brosephus:

Love the name by the way. I have a sense from reading your posts that you and I are about the same age. I think the unfortunate reality is that our generation is going to get hosed one way or the other on the major transfer programs. The unfunded trillions in liabilities associated with these programs mean we either have to reduce benefits in the future or raise revenue to pay for them. There are many ways that either of the above could be accomplished, and they could be done in tandem to keep the programs sustainable. But one way or another, it’s highly unlikely that these programs will look and feel the same for you and I when we reach our golden years as they do/did for our parents today/yesterday. We can’t stay on the path we’re on with the current tax and benefits regimes – the pieces on the chessboard have to change in some way. I’m not happy about this but unfortunately I think it is reality, and the sooner we start improving the equation, the less draconian the future modifications to these programs will need to be.

td

March 4th, 2013
9:24 am

axPayer

March 4th, 2013
9:05 am

Bush’s wars should have been funded with new tax revenues from day one. Given that Republicans refuse to pay for their wars, or anything else, we have no choice but to cut the DoD budget and cut it we will.

Bush’s wars cost the tax payers less then Obama’s payoff to unions and government employees. Paying for health insurance for the people unwilling to pay for it themselves or who make bad choices in life cost more per year then the wars.

stands for decibels

March 4th, 2013
9:25 am

“A question that made it clear older people’s SS would not be touched and only younger workers would be transitioned to a different program would have produced an entirely different result.”

–Paul Ryan’s mom

Stevie Ray

March 4th, 2013
9:25 am

Bosch

March 4th, 2013
9:20 am

So I hear you to be suggesting that simply finding waste and eliminating it isn’t enough to meet this goal of $85 billion? IMO they need to spread across boards if only to include cutting waste already identified by BO previously.

Several of the hysterical tactics employed by BO et al are already proven BS…Department heads know where the waste is..

Deep down we all know that the goal will be accomplished mostly via accounting gimicks similar to much of previous alledged “cuts”..

Mr. Snarky

March 4th, 2013
9:26 am

Another debt owed by the GOP to W and his wars of choice.

Steve

March 4th, 2013
9:26 am

Bosch is right – the Republicans, in about 6 months, will point to the declining economy (caused by this foolish “sequester”) and the Confederate old white men in here will be wailing about how Obozo is wrecking the economy.

fedup

March 4th, 2013
9:26 am

We still have our unregulated militia with their ARs. If war breaks out these brave souls will be in front of the line to protect the country. I like to hear from them.

larry

March 4th, 2013
9:26 am

If our outflows continue to exceed our inflows out upkeep will be our downfall…

Just get rid of the SS cap ……….

And if need be, raise the SS tax rate from 6.6 to 6.8. It hasnt been raised since 1982.

See, it’s simple.

Welcome to the Occupation

March 4th, 2013
9:26 am

JohnnyReb: “This particular moment in time is an abberation to get spending cuts in place since Obama won’t do any cuts.”

I almost think people should be banned from the blog for rank stupidity of this sort.

Do you a single ounce of grey matter operating at all, friend?

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

March 4th, 2013
9:26 am

To steal a line from Nathan Forrest,
It’s no longer “be there the firstest with the mostest.”

Now it’s “be there firstest with the smartest.”

Moderate Line

March 4th, 2013
9:26 am

Projected spending for defense according to OMB was suppose to shrink to 2.9%. Even with a decrease from the 2011(most recent data) of 4.7% total government spending in 2017 is projected to be 22.2 which is well above the 19.7% under both Bush and Clinton. Defense spending averaged 3.6 in this period.

Total non-defense spending has gone from 16.1 under Bush-Clinton era to a project of 19.3(Projected 2017) accoding to OMB historical tables. That is a 19.8% increase in non-defense spending.

This is a 3.2% of GDP increase in spending projected in 2017 over the average spending of Bush-Clinton era.

stands for decibels

March 4th, 2013
9:27 am

Bosch is right – the Republicans, in about 6 months, will point to the declining economy (caused by this foolish “sequester”) and the Confederate old white men in here will be wailing about how Obozo is wrecking the economy.

Probably somewhat closer to 6 weeks, but otherwise, yep.

Moderate Line

March 4th, 2013
9:28 am

Brosephus™ @9:12, and if I get hosed, then there had better be enough hose to get everybody.

One of your best.

Welcome to the Occupation

March 4th, 2013
9:30 am

JohhnyReb: “This particular moment in time is an abberation to get spending cuts in place since Obama won’t do any cuts”

Have you been under a rock for 2 years?

Your stupidity is mind-numbing. Really.

I know slow-witted resentful types are perfect targets for propaganda, but man you take the cake. Goebbels would have licked his lips at the idea of having a target audience of people like you to work with.

stands for decibels

March 4th, 2013
9:31 am

Obama won’t do any cuts

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/21/balanced-plan-avert-sequester-and-reduce-deficit

It’s stupid, I’ve told him as much, I will continue to bitch and moan about a “Democratic” president entering the ####ing negotiations by stabbing hiimself like that, but yes. He is offering to make cuts.

Now, I’m no Norman Einsteen and I’m terrible at 11th dimension chess, so maybe I’m just a fool who doesn’t get that it’s always superduper smart to look like a weak man so that the other side makes itself look even stupider, or something. But to me, I think it is what it is–a White House offering to break promises made to Americans, in hopes that the other side won’t counter offer with something too horrible, but at least make a counter-offer.

(And we need that counter offer because… um… well, here’s where I’m real stupid, I can’t figure out why we do.)

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

March 4th, 2013
9:31 am

That’s right – it’s Obama’s.

boy the Cons have been pounding this home. It’s a 2-way street and lucky for us, most Americans don’t watch Fox News or listen to the HannityLimbaughs of the world.

By the way, has anyone listened to Cain lately? He’s not even remotely the sharpest tool in the shed. He make Boortz sound like a scholar.

Martin the Calvinist

March 4th, 2013
9:32 am

TD, liberals don’t care if revenue received by the federal gov’t is at an all time high, it’s still not enough for them. BTW, TD for the first 3-5 years, the sequestration is a real cut. It’s after year 5 it’s a cut into growth. Look at Jamie Dupree’s blog, (he works for the AJC in case you didn’t know.)

Byte Me, I work in the Medical equipment field, Obamacare took care of that negotiating thing. It’s law now. Insurance is supposed to use the cheapest piece of equipment possible. That is why my company only rents out one bed to home care patients. All the other equipment we used to offer can be purchased, rented cheaper by our competitors.

Jay, for the 1st time in history, we have cut spending! That is an awesome thing! We spend too much, even in our military. What we do need it real tax reform where we eliminate all deductions and lower rates for everyone. I still think we leave the personal deduction alone and add dependents to it (providing there is proof there are dependents) ie the child tax credit. As I said Friday, there is a real difference between a small business owner who generates 2 million in sales and a ball player or CEO that earns 2 million in income. We shouldn’t tax them at the same rate.

Stevie Ray

March 4th, 2013
9:32 am

Why do we need such a monsterous ground force? Under what circumstances do we need more than 230 warships? Just in case? If we were more judicious in the way we employ these assets (allowing others to become world police….I think BO is doing us a favor by policies geared toward more judicious employment), no way we need this much brute force.

The next big “war” will be economical/cyber event. Not anything that will ever require invasion of individual troops.

Cuts need to be made…much deeper than a paltry $85 billion….surprise, our government fails us again.

Keep Up the Good Fight!

March 4th, 2013
9:33 am

I am certain that now that the sequester is in place and that the conned attribute the sequester to Obama, they will readily acknowledge that Obama has addressed tax cuts. :lol: SO now since it seems that Boehner says we have to take turns (”he got his tax increase now its time for cuts”) its time for some more tax increases and closing loopholes.

[...] Pushing To Diversify Federal Judiciary Amid GOP Delays – The …Huffington PostAtlanta Journal Constitution (blog) -USA TODAY -Washington Post (blog)all 261 news [...]

j

March 4th, 2013
9:34 am

Making defense cuts would be the smartest move possible. Right now the U.S. spends more on defense than all the other countries in the world COMBINED. AS far as having fewer ships now than in 1915, in 1915 no ships were nuclear powered and could spend a year at sea without being refueled. No ship in 1915 could launch nuclear missels while submerged that could hit all the major cities in the world.
We need a cheaper more effective military force. Military that operates on the cheap and does it right.
Too much pomposity in the military, Generals and Admirals chasing floozies.

Martin the Calvinist

March 4th, 2013
9:34 am

Jay, btw, I feel that Obama is really happy about the defense cuts, along with most liberals. There may be disagreement on where they came from in the defense budget but overall, I believe this is exactly what liberals wanted.

TaxPayer

March 4th, 2013
9:34 am

Bush’s wars cost the tax payers less then Obama’s payoff to unions and government employees.

Hogwash, td.

Steve

March 4th, 2013
9:35 am

Time to close down bases in Europe. Why do we need so many bases on foreign soil that are solid allies?

Brosephus™ - Mobile and Multitasking

March 4th, 2013
9:36 am

Bosch @ 9:20

That’s exactly how it will happen, down to the short term memory.

————

Stevie Ray

The ratio you talk about is the long term repercussions of short term thinking. Imagine how different that ratio would be had our “business” leaders focused on cultivating job growth at home instead of searching for the world’s cheapest labor? Yet hard working middle and lower class people have to pay for the f**k up of people who don’t even pay much into the system at all. Welcome to the Feudal States of America.

———–

Bosch

March 4th, 2013
9:37 am

Stevie Ray,

They are being spread across the board, in every agency. And no I certainly don’t think cuts like this can be fixed with accounting magic. I’m sure each dept head can find waste, but these will also include people losing their jobs.

As to the economy, let’s see if the panacea of all right wingers, the free market, will step up.

weetamoe

March 4th, 2013
9:37 am

Why doesn’t the entitlement chart include political affiliation?
Grassroots republicans=conservatives & TEA party supporters

Martin the Calvinist

March 4th, 2013
9:37 am

Keep up the good fight, you can have all the tax increases your generous heart wants to give to the federal gov’t. I don’t want them! We don’t need them. Real tax reform that cuts rates along with deductions and loopholes to make the code easier for the average American. I can except that. What I can’t except is a tax code that manipulates behavior.

Erwin's cat

March 4th, 2013
9:38 am

Keep – its time for some more tax increases and closing loopholes.

From/for who?…the middle class?
http://money.msn.com/taxes/are-high-earners-getting-the-shaft

Brosephus™ - Mobile and Multitasking

March 4th, 2013
9:38 am

Wahoo

Those liabilities only exist because the people who benefit most from these programs have little to no control over them.

Common Sense is Uncommon

March 4th, 2013
9:38 am

The Congressional Budget Ofice announced the federal government will take in a record amount of taxes for fiscal 2013. In spite of the government having the most revenue in the history of our country the Obamanistas appetite for even more government programs cannot be satisfied. Just as in the commercial, where little girl cries, More, more, we want more” the Obama moochers demand more or other peoples money.

joe

March 4th, 2013
9:40 am

“Obama’s 6 trillion deficit in only 4 years is historic”

Fixed your headline

DannyX

March 4th, 2013
9:41 am

“In spite of the government having the most revenue in the history of our country the Obamanistas appetite for even more government programs cannot be satisfied.”

What new government programs has Obama proposed?

Bob

March 4th, 2013
9:41 am

Mr. Snarky , “Another debt owed by the GOP to W and his wars of choice”
Hey Snarky, what about the debt from the democrat wars of choice ? Did the dem party prepay the costs associated with being in Korea after invading them ? Did the dem party pay back all the money wasted on their war of choice in Vietnam ? Johnson and dems passed the unified budget act to hide the money spent on that war against a country that never attacked us. It was also the dem party that funded the pentagon so heavily that a repub president warned us of the military industrial complex. That was built during a dem lock on congress. It was also the dem party that put our troops in Germany, Japan and any other place that would accept them. For those that want to ignore history you can disagree but money built the pentagon and that money was spent by dems prior to Reagan or Bush.

appleseed

March 4th, 2013
9:42 am

I’m sure SS & Medicare changes are not far into the future.Medicaid cuts need be addressed. All people do not need internet and cell phones.As for the military China will takeover any place we depart.

Stevie Ray

March 4th, 2013
9:42 am

stands for decibels

March 4th, 2013
9:31 am

I’m no nothing about chess levels of achievement but sounds like nobody on this board could hold their own…cool.

As respects the alledged 2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, the numbers are horrifically decieving…For example, no small amount are cuts that already occured. Additionally the assumptions about reduced interest expense and healthcare reductions will prove to be bogus…I can back into any number you like by simply adjusting my assumptions.

“It’s important to note that the bulk of these “cuts” have yet to materialize. The Budget Control Act imposed “caps” on discretionary spending that Congress is supposed to comply with in future appropriations bills. The White House’s projections of $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction include budgets through fiscal year 2022, and, of course, it remains to be seen what specific cuts to federal programs those future Congresses will actually make.”

Promises promises..

Donovan

March 4th, 2013
9:44 am

Here’s a novel idea…Democrats agree to make serious cuts in entitlements now that Republicans have made serious cuts in the military through sequestration and caved in on raising the taxes on the 2%.

I would say that we have bent over backwards to put a stop to the Democrat spending and looting of this country. We gave up some sacred cows for compromise.

What do we get in return? Stubborn resistance to voluntary cuts, demands for more taxation, refusal to come up with a Senate budget, and childish dooms-day prognostications by Jay Bookman and his political affiliates.

This sequestration was the brain child of your inept radical president and it backfired. Live with it, sleep with it, and feel the pain. It is truly the only way to force your mouth open to accept the bitter medicine needed to save this country from you looters gone wild.

wahoo

March 4th, 2013
9:44 am

Brosephus:

I respectfully disagree. Those liabilities exist because the programs themselves have created promises of future performance by the Federal. In today’s environment those promises appear incapable of being kept by the Federal. But whether I agree with you or not on why those liabilities exist is irrelevant. They do exist and they must be dealt with. We simply cannot stay on the same path we are on today.

Lee stu

March 4th, 2013
9:44 am

From the Generation that protested the Viet Nam war a nd It’s Draftees We don’t seem to mind war or military spending NOW we ve had two middle east wars and afganistan not a peep from Hanoi Jane except for fashion So I guess all the Protestors have Gone ..Gone to old age everyone

Bosch

March 4th, 2013
9:45 am

Stevie Ray,

I agree with you on why the need for monstrous ground forces, war ships, etc., but those equate to jobs. Reduce those, reduce jobs. In my opinion, you need to re-train, re-think strategy, but that takes time and money. Same with energy, Obama is for that, but since he’s for it, the GOP is against it, and stripping our education system in the process.

stands for decibels

March 4th, 2013
9:45 am

there is a real difference between a small business owner who generates 2 million in sales and a ball player or CEO that earns 2 million in income. We shouldn’t tax them at the same rate.

But we don’t, already. Ballplayer draws a salary; CEO can take his earnings in some stock option flim-flam; the small business owner might only take home 50K/year…

Moderate Line

March 4th, 2013
9:45 am

Moderate Line @9.26
Projected spending for defense according to OMB was suppose to shrink to 2.9%. Even with a decrease from the 2011(most recent data) of 4.7% total government spending in 2017 is projected to be 22.2 which is well above the 19.7% under both Bush and Clinton. Defense spending averaged 3.6 in this period.

Total non-defense spending has gone from 16.1 under Bush-Clinton era to a project of 19.3(Projected 2017) accoding to OMB historical tables. That is a 19.8% increase in non-defense spending.

This is a 3.2% of GDP increase in spending projected in 2017 over the average spending of Bush-Clinton era.

Adding further where does the 3.2% increase come from.
Social Sercurity ave(Bush-Clinton) 4.35 Projected 2017 5.06 Increase of .71% of GDP
Medicare ave(Bush-Clinton) 2.27% Project 2017 3.14% which is a .87% increase of GDP

Of the 3.2% increase 48% of the increase is medicare and social security.
According to OMB 1/3 of the increase in non-defense spending is for net interest. This accounts for 80% of the increase in spending.

DannyX

March 4th, 2013
9:46 am

“This sequestration was the brain child of your inept radical president and it backfired.”

“I got 98% of what I wanted”
-John Boehner